Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

What do you think those companies will do if you increase their taxes? Roll over and just fork it over even if it puts them in the red?

I'll say this in the nicest way possible.

You're a fucking idiot.

Corporate taxes cannot, by definition, put a business "in the red" as they are levied only on net profits after expenses. Personal taxes on the other hand are on all revenue minus whatever small deductions (usual only the standard deduction) are available. Until we tax corporations on their gross revenue, or only tax individuals on money left over after expenses, comparing them directly is disingenuous.

toadlife (301863) writes "NPR media reporter David Folkenflik writes in his forthcoming book Murdoch's World that Fox News' public relations staffers used an elaborate series of dummy accounts to fill the comments sections of critical blog posts with pro-Fox arguments. A former staffer told Folkenflik that they had personally used "one hundred" fake accounts to plant Fox-friendly commentary. Fox PR staffers were expected to counter not just negative and even neutral blog postings but the anti-Fox comments beneath them. One former staffer recalled using twenty different aliases to post pro-Fox rants. Another had one hundred. Several employees had to acquire a cell phone thumb drive to provide a wireless broadband connection that could not be traced back to a Fox News or News Corp account."Link to Original Source

If I have no taxable income, or even better, no income at all, am I still liable for the penalty 'tax'?

No.

From the ACA Wiki article:

Under the mandatory coverage provision, individuals who are not covered by an acceptable insurance policy will be charged an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income over the filing minimum,[115] whichever is greater; this will rise to a minimum of $695 ($2,085 for families),[116] or 2.5% of income over the filing minimum,[115] by 2016.[18][117] The penalty is prorated, meaning that if a person or family have coverage for part of the year they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.[118] Exemptions are permitted for religious reasons, members of health care sharing ministries, or for those for whom the least expensive policy would exceed 8% of their income.

"B" is an insurance company funded ploy to strip the states ability to regulate their own health insurance markets. What would happen is that health insurance companies would all operate from one or a handful of states with the least regulation.

Maybe in the long run it would force states to implement their own state based socialized medicine, but in the short run it would do nothing to help consumers.

How in the hell did this post end up at +5? It is a pile of uninformed nonsense.

Government at the state level have been forcing citizens to make certain purchases in the commercial market in order to participate in the economy decades. This includes things like auto insurance, disability insurance, pollution control devices. Massachusetts in particular has required individual citizens to purchase health insurance for years now.

The only novelty here was that the law was at the federal level, and contrary to your assertion, there is no threat of a fine or arrest. The Supreme Court's ruling specifically stated that the "fine" imposed by the Affordable Care Act was not a fine because it was a tax, and congress has the power to tax for any reason. Congress has a long history of imposing discriminatory taxes in order to encourage certain economic behavior. The penalty in the ACA is just one more example.

Just as you can opt out of many of the state level requirements by not participating in the economic activity that the various regulation affect, you also opt out of the federal requirements by choosing not to participate in the economy, or by simply choosing to pay the "fine".

Yes, it is. It is a continuation of the budget that was already passed. You should be happy about it too, since it has effectively cut spending when you take into account inflation. The federal budget has grown less under Obama that is has under any other president since the end of WWII.

Between Ted Kennedy dying and the Coleman/Franken Senate race recount, the D's actually had a filibuster proof majority for ~24 working days during those two year. The rest of the time, they required Republican vote(s) to get anything through. With what little time they had, they chose to pursue health care reform instead of passing a new budget.

That aside, they *did* pass a budget. They passed a continuing resolution which extended Bush's last budget; so we've been operating on George W. Bush's last budget since FY2009.